You will recall that yesterday I talked about the cult of personality surrounding alternative history purveyors and how this substitutes for reasoned argument. Today I have some exhibits to make the case. Both were posted to Instagram by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, the the star of Ancient Aliens.

Exhibit number 1 is a "limited edition" numbered print of Giorgio Tsoukalos which he gave away this week at the Famous Monsters of Filmland booth at San Diego's ComicCon. I won't reproduce the image lest it upset Tsoukalos. Please note, though, that the bottom corner of the picture says that Giorgio is finally taking my advice and getting himself a URL; however, "GiorgioTsoukalos.com" currently redirects back to Legendary Times Books, his online bookstore.

Our second exhibit must be seen to be believed. Below is a small portion of a photograph Tsoukalos posted to Instagram, which I reproduce here under fair use because I am about to comment on and criticize it:

As you can see, he gave out cardboard headgear imprinted with an image of his Bride-of-Frankenstein hairdo, emblazoned with his self-coined adjective "Tsoukalicious." I think this makes fairly plain that Tsoukalos has passed into the realm of pop culture personality and is self-consciously promoting himself as the sum of his various eccentricities. Note, for example, that the headgear makes no reference to extraterrestrials or to ancient history, but rather solely to Giorgio A. Tsoukalos as Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, television personality. No wonder OnStar has been so interested in obtaining his services as spokesperson.

This is of a piece with his busy line of self-merchandising, including his autographed photographs, which are $45 apiece or $65 (!) per autograph for full personalization. What I would like to know, though, is if Tsoukalos has Prometheus Entertainment's permission to sell his wares as "Ancient Aliens" merchandise since the name "Ancient Aliens" is trademarked by the production company.

Jason. Tsoukalos is a professional ass clown but we have to be honest,some amongst the skeptic community are also driven by pornographic egocentrism, & to a larger extent,the symptoms that affect the "alternative" counterculture are also present inside skeptics circles.Nature behaves erratically,more than often the disorder affecting a particular microcosm reproduces itself inside another microcosm.If you look at skeptics as a social community (or social construction),they more than often behave like cultists.Spending interminable week ends among themselves, talking about how great they are,how important they are & the amazing job they do.The Amazing Meeting (TAM) is a perfect example.There is a basic fee for attending the event,fees for special events,fees for "workshops", & even a VIP dinner where you can consider yourself lucky for sharing overpriced foods with the leading figures of the international skeptic scene.Some prominent figures of the skeptical movement are barometers for egocentric activity.There is a cult personality surrounding James Randi,& you only have to take a look at Sharon Hill`s Facebook page, to understand she is driven by a huge ego.It`s all about "me,me,me".I`m probably arrogant but I have serious questions regarding the skeptics community intellectual & scientific accomplishment.They have been debunking Dowsing,Tarot reading,paranormal activities for decades but they are preaching to the choir.Navel-gazing at its best.
I am not asking anyone to agree with me on this one.I probably wont be very popular for making such statement,but since we have undertaken to criticize the loonies on the alternative fringe,I consider we also have to be intellectually honest by cleaning up your own backyard.

Undoubtedly; Randi sells some pretty silly merchandise, too. The difference is that Randi isn't trying to make a mint off of lies. That said, I'll be honest: Many of the higher-ups in skepticism act as gatekeepers and don't like others infringing on their fiefdoms. More than one prominent skeptic, whom I won't name, refused in the past to help me contact publishers or agents they know and work with for fear it would undercut their own sales and position.

I still get brochures for skeptics' cruises, and I can't imagine paying through the nose to sail with the skeptics. But at least they don't openly deceive people about the nature of reality, just the value of having dinner with them.

Reply

Tara Jordan

7/21/2013 03:31:24 pm

Jason.On your own individual level,you are doing a far better job than these semi-professional organizations.There is a reason as to why unsavory characters like myself, support you.You are on your own,you don't belong to the Club.You take no prisoner & deal with the consequences (legal suits).You shoot in all directions (I am glad you had the courage to deal with Pinker`s insanities),plus there is no censorship on your blog,absolute freedom of expression.From a skeptical perspective I wouldn't be able to post critical comments on the James Randi educational foundation forums.These hammers of rationality are too thin skinned for accepting dissent from "within".They may pretend otherwise but they are as insecure as their arch enemies. We may disagree from time to time but you are a stand up guy and I respect that.

The Other J.

7/21/2013 07:00:22 pm

Tara, you said: "From a skeptical perspective I wouldn't be able to post critical comments on the James Randi educational foundation forums."

Just out of curiosity, what would be an example of a critical comment that would get knocked down on the JREF forums? Not that I'm disagreeing (and I don't frequent those pages); I'm just genuinely curious. It's the sort of statement I've heard before, and seems like the kind of thing Phil Plait was referring to when he told the people at TAM "Don't be a dick."

I too find it strange that celebrity skeptics will devote so much time and energy to attacking fringe ideas that can barely defend themselves in the first place. I understand they see that kind of thinking as larger and more pervasive than it might actually be, and indicative of things like Louisiana mandating creationism being taught in science classrooms. But I often wish they'd devote more of that considerable intellectual heft to more pressing issues, instead of aiming at the broad sides of barn doors. A little debunking that had more immediate material consequences might get them more public acceptance. If more skeptical scientists put as much energy into debunking fracking as they did to transubstantiation or creationism or chupacabras, there might be more drinkable water available in the Appalachian region.

Tara Jordan

7/21/2013 10:24:48 pm

The Other J.

Excellent question,but somehow you provided the answer when you labeled skeptics are "gatekeepers".
I consider skeptics to be cowards.They have enough courage for "attacking fringe ideas that can barely defend themselves in the first place",but when it comes to use common sense,critical thinking in questioning authority,denouncing institutional lies,political corruption, debunking governmental cover ups,geopolitical shenanigans,black op operations,psychological warfare,the murderous & disastrous impacts of foreign policy,there is no one to be found among self-proclaimed skeptics & rational thinkers.Self-proclaimed skeptics always support the Government-establishment view of virtually everything, no matter in what direction the evidence points.they are the ultimate gatekeepers.

Have you ever seen skeptics talking about real socio-political issues?.Skeptical magazines & sites or skeptic forums attacking problems that are really affecting society?.I consider that debunking controversies such as the Iraqi aluminum tubes allegations,the Niger yellow cake forgeries,are far more important than devoting energy in debating spiritual healers,psychic readings,medium hotlines,UFO`s etc....
On few occasions,among skeptics,I tried to raise fundamental questions related to ethics & morality in politics,the nature of "national interest", what lies behind so called foreign policies & national security,but skeptics are not interested. On daily base,the White House,the State Department,the Pentagon,the Intel agencies are engaged in "real life conspiracies" that are affecting people on a global scale.These entities are defrauding the public but skeptics wont touch these issues with a ten-foot pole.

Reply

Tara Joprdan

7/22/2013 03:29:02 am

A precision.As a non US citizen I mentioned issues related to American affairs to make my case,but I could have cited instances of foreign governments doing exactly the same things.

Paul Cargile

7/22/2013 04:50:31 am

How does one go about debunking the controversies you give as example and others like them? Will online research suffice to buttress arguments? What sources can be trusted? How are they validated? To discover what states and corporations are truly doing requires investigative research, requires the hard proof, the laden of shipping, sales receipts, phone records, ect., someone physically getting into a place a state or corporation doesn’t' want them to get into and handling incriminating or acquitting evidence; an investigation that cost money to travel, plus the risk of criminal trespass, and possibly the potential of personal injury. Without the actual contract for the sale of Nigerian yellow cake (per your example), all we have to debate with is secondary sources, which may or may not be factual, or whose accuracy cannot be verified. Without substantiated, verifiably genuine documents or other evidence, the only points left to argue with are doubts, emotions, conjecture, speculation, and biases. How can a skeptic debunk or refute a claim when the veracity of presented facts is questionable? We’re dealing with the actions of people with their own motivations to either lie or tell the truth about their activities or activities they have witnessed.

People and leaders alike perceive threats and act on those perceptions, whether the threat is real or not. Saddam Hussein perceived a threat from Iran, their war being substantiated proof. And when a person feels a threat they seek to do something about it, especially if they feel their lives are in danger, and in such a case, no amount of laws or UN resolutions or going to stop a person (or a state, or an organization) from doing what they deem necessary to protect themselves. It’s reasonable that Iraq wanted a nuclear weapon, just as it is reasonable that Iran wants one. They wanted or want one for the same reasons that those nuclear nations have them. I have no idea what Iraq was doing in its nuclear program, but they had the motive.

We can talk about Iraq, but I have no hard facts to offer to refute or support my ideas. A hard fact being the aforementioned evidence. I believe that could be the reason skeptics on the web don’t like to breach such topics; a lack of trustworthy proof. But then again, I don’t have any facts to support my belief—which means it could change.

Tara Jordan

7/22/2013 05:59:37 am

"a lack of trustworthy proof".Paul Cargile,I dont want to be rude, but if you are asking for "trustworthy proof" you probably spent the last 40 years living in a cave in Borneo. Have you ever watched congressional committees on foreign affairs, intelligence,military matters?. I neither have the intention nor the time to start a debate over such issues.I am not supposed to do your education,please start with the National Security Archive :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

The Other J.

7/22/2013 10:12:31 am

Tara, Paul,

I think there probably are cases where skeptics bring their particular skills to more pressing issues, but they're not as visible or -- for whatever reason -- as sexy as shooting at sitting ducks on the social fringe.

One example might be the BBC series Conspiracy Road Trip. In one episode, the host took a 9/11 truther through all of the available evidence. This was a guy who had been on the frontlines of the truther movement in Great Britain, on his way to becoming the UK's Alex Jones. By the end of the process, he had changed his mind on how the buildings were brought down, and made (on his own) a youtube video denouncing his previously-held truther views. (Since then he's also sustained a number of threats, including death threats, and accusations of being a Zionist stooge.) Granted, that occurred in Britain, not the U.S., and I think they have a bit of a different relationship with rationality than we do here.

Another example that comes to mind is a Security Foreign Relations committee hearing back in February, 2003 (Senate Hearing 108-19). Before the hearing, senators Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden had gone to northern Iraq on a fact-finding mission prior to the authorization of the invasion. They brought then Sec. of Defense Colin Powell in to the hearing to answer some questions:

Hagel and Biden learned from the Kurds, the Talibani, and other intelligence of an Ansal al-Islam facility in northeastern Iraq that was producing ricin. The administration was using a supposed link between Ansar al-Islam, al-Qaeda and Iraq as part of their justification for the invasion. It also turned out that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi had supervised that facility (the guy who started taking heads and was used by Powell to link al-Qaeda to Iraq in his UN presentation). This hearing was a month before the invasion, and in the hearing Biden asked Powell point-blank:

"And so my question is, if you know, how long has the administration been aware of this presence in northeastern Iraq, and if Ansar is so dangerous, and a key part of the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, why had we not taken direct military action—it is in the ‘‘no-fly zone’’—against that group, or, alternately, urged and supported the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan to eliminate Ansar? Can you give us an answer to that?"

Powell said he couldn't respond in an open hearing.

From a skeptic's point of view, Biden and Hagel both displayed a good deal of skepticism about the claims being presented, explored the evidence, found problems with the evidence (there's a facility in the U.S.-controlled no-fly zone making ricin; why aren't we flattening it?), and confronted the claim-makers with their counter-arguments.

This is a case where I think skepticism was put to good use. The problem, though, is that specific skeptical inquiry was mostly invisible; you had to really dig to find that information. For a while, the transcript of the hearing was available online via the U.S. Government Printing Office, then disappeared for a while 2003, possibly because of an upgrade; it was off-line for more than a year. As of now, it's back online. (Full disclosure: I was writing about this for a graduate course at the time, and had to request a hard copy after the digital version disappeared.)

Perhaps reporters did have the info, and other stories knocked this one out of the headlines (contemporary media management is an art and a competition). But the debunking of the Ansar al-Islam - Zarqawi - al-Qaeda - Iraq link wasn't made publicly clear until years after the invasion began, and this is a case where more skeptical heft could have been useful. The way it stands, it looks like the administration allowed Ansar al-Islam to run the facility in order to use it to help make their case for war, and Hagel and Biden's skepticism laid bare those claims at the time. If more attention had been paid to those presenting a skeptical eye in the first place, who knows how that would have turned out.

For what it's worth, U.S. forces did eventually dismantle the facility -- which was already in U.S.-controlled territory in northeastern Iraq -- but not until a week after the invasion began.

Tara Jordan

7/22/2013 01:09:45 pm

The Other J
"The problem, though, is that specific skeptical inquiry was mostly invisible; you had to really dig to find that information...".
I totally agree with you.When I confront "conspiracy theorists" I always tell them that they don't have to rely on dubious internet sites,loony professional characters to make their case.There is always a truckload of evidences buried inside "official & mainstream" documentations.The Ansal al-Islam facility story you cited, was a gem, especially since the phony "facility" was located in a region outside Saddam Hussein control, & was under the protection a Kurdish faction.It is Always a pleasure to exchange with you.You really know what you are talking about.

Paul Cargile

7/23/2013 02:39:15 am

That's the whole point Tara; nothing is trustworthy, hence socio-political debate devolves quickly into an argument of opinion, which is why people may avoid the topics in skeptic forums and blogs.

Tara Jordan

7/25/2013 04:49:09 am

Paul. I cannot disagree with your premise.This is precisly the reason I switched field after graduation.There is nothing remotly scientific about political sciences.Ideology overshadows empirical evaluation

Tsoukalos doesn't only cash in on his cartoon-esque eccentricities, he also peddles archaeological lies. Namely his so-called Golden Flyer (lapel pin or pendant), which is his bastardized version of a pre-Columbian Incan funerary artifact. The man is willing to attach himself to all manner of quackery.

Reply

Pamela

7/21/2013 03:07:23 pm

Tsoukalos must have forgotten to bring his other representative head gear to his adoring fans: the giant prophylactic for massive phallic types.

Reply

tubby

7/22/2013 03:46:31 am

I'm sorry Tara.. are you sure Tsoukalos is actually serious? He's selling a cardboard hair tiara and a cheaply Photoshopped print where he's trying to Indiana Jones it up. I can't find anything serious about this guy.

Reply

Tara Jordan

7/22/2013 04:37:36 am

Tubby. Tsoukalos is a clown but there are a lot of people who take him very seriously. Tsoukalos happens to be one of them ;)

Reply

spookyparadigm

7/22/2013 12:19:53 pm

The Other J. said

"I think there probably are cases where skeptics bring their particular skills to more pressing issues, but they're not as visible or -- for whatever reason -- as sexy as shooting at sitting ducks on the social fringe."

Well yes. When you apply them to such cases, they're called politics.

- application of critical reasoning to politics is, well, politics

- application of critical reasoning within the scientific community is, well, science

- application of critical reasoning that doesn't fall into those categories has a couple of names, and one of them is Skepticism (TM, and/or OMGWTFBBQ)

Calls demanding one should be taking apart political claims rather than other kinds of claims, are fair. But let's call it what it is, demanding that someone be doing politics instead of something else.

I also don't think that a lot of the style of skepticism (TM) work well in politics. The idea behind the skepticism found at this site, for example, is to take apart claims in an educational and scholarly manner.

When does that ever work in politics? Most people don't decide their political loyalties on a cut-and-dried examination of the facts. They may well not even recognize your facts. One can wave the Downing Street Memos in front of your average Republican all day, and it simply won't matter. Not because of a success or failure in critically examining a claim. It likely won't even get that far, you'll just be dismissed.

This is in fact why some skeptics are very anti-political in their skepticism (I would not put myself in that number). Some would say that once you go political, a scientific or critical examination becomes possible. I would hold up climate change as exhibit A, where in the US at least, you will never get serious action on climate change because it has become a partisan political issue.

Reply

The Other J.

7/22/2013 05:25:17 pm

With regard to what skepticism applied in different paradigms actually is (politics, science), I don't disagree in principle. But skepticism consists of a process of rational practices, and an issue arises when it comes to how that kind of skepticism and its practices is relayed to the public sphere -- the media, whether that be the news or an educational system that teaches people how to recognize genuine skepticism in practice and what those measures consist of.

That's kind of what I was getting at above, with the Conspiracy Road Trip show and Sen. Hr. 108-19. In the first case, there was A.) A popular press that was able to systematically present a skeptical case to a 9/11 truther, and B.) An audience -- the truther himself -- who was familiar enough with rational skepticism to change his mind and accept a new world view when the facts were strong enough and well-supported.

In the second case, that arguably WAS active skepticism in the political sphere. However, there was no mass media in place that could effectively popularize Hagel and Biden's practical rational skepticism, and the weakness of Powell's response. Much of the case for the Iraq invasion was built around generating fear in the public mind about another impending attack ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), and that sort of framing most likely was meant to short-circuit public skepticism. But I can't help but wonder if there was a more actively skeptical popular media, and a better-educated public with regard to rational inquiry, Hagel and Biden's questions would have had a significant impact, instead of no impact.

But education, media, media's role in public education -- that's all a different discussion. If it were up to me, critical thinking skills would be part of a regular, quarterly curriculum no later than middle school and would continue through high school; that way college teachers could at least have some reasonable expectations when they get their new crop of freshmen each year, rather than having to start from scratch (been there, done that). A public who already has honed critical thinking skills by adulthood might demand more of its mass media as well. The other question is of the media's role in educating the public, rather than reciting talking points; and that education could demonstrate rational skepticism. But we know for the most part that doesn't happen, and at least for the time being, it wouldn't sell papers or advertising on cable TV.

Reply

Only Me

7/22/2013 06:36:58 pm

Spookyparadigm, Other J.,

You both have made outstanding points.

My only contribution would be this: regardless of the arena, the charlatan will have an advantage over the skeptic. Both are motivated by an agenda. The charlatan is willing to give himself over wholesale, for he has nothing to lose. The skeptic must tread more carefully, lest he seen as some form of zealot. Skepticism must not be overtaken by the agenda if it is to serve the agenda.

This dynamic is especially dangerous in politics, but it is becoming more so in the media every day, for the reasons you mentioned.

It makes me wonder who is laughing harder in grand court: those who are entertained by the fool, or the fool who entertains them?

CFC

7/23/2013 06:05:29 am

Many of the comments on this string are very insightful and thought provoking. Thank you!

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.